Abstract

BackgroundThanks to the large amount of signal contained in genome-wide sequence alignments, phylogenomic analyses are converging towards highly supported trees. However, high statistical support does not imply that the tree is accurate. Systematic errors, such as the Long Branch Attraction (LBA) artefact, can be misleading, in particular when the taxon sampling is poor, or the outgroup is distant. In an otherwise consistent probabilistic framework, systematic errors in genome-wide analyses can be traced back to model mis-specification problems, which suggests that better models of sequence evolution should be devised, that would be more robust to tree reconstruction artefacts, even under the most challenging conditions.MethodsWe focus on a well characterized LBA artefact analyzed in a previous phylogenomic study of the metazoan tree, in which two fast-evolving animal phyla, nematodes and platyhelminths, emerge either at the base of all other Bilateria, or within protostomes, depending on the outgroup. We use this artefactual result as a case study for comparing the robustness of two alternative models: a standard, site-homogeneous model, based on an empirical matrix of amino-acid replacement (WAG), and a site-heterogeneous mixture model (CAT). In parallel, we propose a posterior predictive test, allowing one to measure how well a model acknowledges sequence saturation.ResultsAdopting a Bayesian framework, we show that the LBA artefact observed under WAG disappears when the site-heterogeneous model CAT is used. Using cross-validation, we further demonstrate that CAT has a better statistical fit than WAG on this data set. Finally, using our statistical goodness-of-fit test, we show that CAT, but not WAG, correctly accounts for the overall level of saturation, and that this is due to a better estimation of site-specific amino-acid preferences.ConclusionThe CAT model appears to be more robust than WAG against LBA artefacts, essentially because it correctly anticipates the high probability of convergences and reversions implied by the small effective size of the amino-acid alphabet at each site of the alignment. More generally, our results provide strong evidence that site-specificities in the substitution process need be accounted for in order to obtain more reliable phylogenetic trees.

Highlights

  • Thanks to the large amount of signal contained in genome-wide sequence alignments, phylogenomic analyses are converging towards highly supported trees

  • By Bayes factor evaluation, we have shown previously that CAT generally has a better fit than homogeneous models based on one single empirical substitution matrix, such as WAG [39], JTT [40], or even the most general site-homogeneous and time-reversible model (GTR) [31,41]

  • Robustness of CAT against Long Branch Attraction (LBA) We analyzed the phylogenetic position of nematodes or of platyhelminths as a function of both the outgroup and the evolutionary model

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Thanks to the large amount of signal contained in genome-wide sequence alignments, phylogenomic analyses are converging towards highly supported trees. Among the diverse methods that have been proposed for dealing with multigene data sets is the so-called supermatrix method [2] This method consists in concatenating the sequences of all available genes into one single "supergene", which is subjected to standard phylogenetic reconstruction methods. There are several cases where standard phylogenetic reconstruction methods yield wrong but statistically well-supported trees These so-called systematic (as opposed to stochastic) errors have been known about for a long time in the field [10,11], and are expected to be present, even enhanced, in a phylogenomic context [1,12]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call